Transit Examples

Determining the Value of Public Transit Service

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated August 28, 2007

This chapter describes successful transit programs. For more examples see Transit Improvements, Transit Encouragement, Light Rail Transit, Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development.

 

 

St Louis MetroLink (www.metrostlouis.org)

The MetroLink 38-mile light rail system consists of two routes extending west and east from the St. Louis central business distric. The first line, 17 miles (27 km) long, was opened in July 1993. A second route, a 17-mile (27-km) extension, opened in May 2001, extending the line further eastward into Illinois with 8 additional stations, terminating at Southwestern Illinois College. A further extension of this line north and east to Shiloh-Scott Air Force Base opened in 2003. An additional extension to the Mid-America  Airport is presently in planning.

 

MetroLink currently (2006) carries 51,000-55,000 daily passengers, with annual ridership totalling about 16 million per year and 133 million annual passenger-miles - a significant increase over 2003, when MetroLink’s ridership totalled about 15 million annually and 124,972,600 passenger-miles, slightly more than the 122,165,700 passenger-miles carried by Metro’s 101-route bus system, and the rail system had a lower operational cost. Current ridership is 43% higher than the 173,582,057 passenger-miles the system carried in 1993, compared with a 17% increase in transit ridership nationwide, indicating that LRT can significantly increase transit ridership by attracting passengers who would otherwise drive an automobile.

 

 

Bus Rapid Transit Service Being Developed (www.ltd.org)

A new type of public transit service, called EmX, is being developed using specially-designed 60-foot articulated buses with hybrid-electric propulsion. The program is being implemented by the Lane Transit District (in central Oregon) and the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (in central Ohio). Service is scheduled to begin in late 2006. The system includes the following features to improve service quality and efficiency:

  • Exclusive right-of-way; guarantees travel time.
  • Signal priority, giving buses priority through intersections.
  • At-grade boarding, making boarding easier and quicker.
  • Pre-paid fares; no fumbling with change.
  • Boarding at all doors, not just the front door.
  • Less frequent stops, improving travel time.
  • Improved stations with amenities for customer comfort.
  • Park & Ride connections.
  • Vehicle Image
  • Tram-like Quiet
  • Low emission (green) Bike Capacity
  • Low-floor Increased ADA capacity
  • Doors on both sides Wider doors – easier access

 

 

Comparing Transit Service Performance: Sacramento and Columbus

A study by Schumann (2005) compares transit system performance in two similar size cities. The Sacramento Regional Transit District (www.sacrt.com) began building a Light Rail Transit system in 1985, while the Central Ohio Transit Authority (www.cota.com) Columbus failed in its efforts establish a similar system in Columbus, Ohio and so only offers bus transit. During the following 17 years, transit service and ridership increased significantly in Sacramento, but declined in Columbus, while operating costs per passenger-mile increased much more in Columbus than in Sacramento, as indicated in the table below.

 

Table 1            Columbus and Sacramento Transit Performance (Schumann, 2005)

<

 

1985

2002

Change

 

CO

SA

SA/CO

CO

SA

SA/CO

CO

SA

County Population (000)

914

903

99%

1,084

1,302

120%

19%

44%

Unlinked trips (000)

25,889

16,051

62%

16,246

26,610

164%

-37%

66%

Trips per capita

28.3

17.8

63%

15.0

20.4

136%

-47%

15%

Passenger miles (000)

121,408

93,473

77%

66,760

119,008

178%

-45%

27%

Passenger miles per capita

132.8

103.5

78%

61.6

91.4

148%

-54%